Conceived in Tyranny


Darkcrusade's picture

Constitutional historian Forrest McDonald makes this observation: "Neither Sam Adams nor John Hancock of Massachusetts nor Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry of Virginia chose to come (Henry did not because, he said, "I smell a rat"; the others offered no excuses)."

I smell a rat? Henry complained of the illegality of the Convention in ignoring the explicit instructions of Congress not to scrap the Articles of Confederation. "The Federal Convention ought to have amended the old system," he protested, "for this purpose they were solely delegated: the object of their mission extended to no other consideration."

For 23 days in the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry led the opposition against ratification of the Constitution. According to Long, "In the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry protested with vehemence against the proposed new Constitution's lack of sufficient safeguards against governmental abuses due to human weakness among its officials, saying:

"Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.”

He recognized the danger of establishing power even ostensibly limited power in the hands of men apart from the possibility of recourse to God and Divine Law. This is the essence, indeed the very definition of elitism and tyranny: ruling apart from any reference to the Law of God.

Glock27's picture

Seems to me as if these guys were smelling more than a rat Have been reading about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson along with Taft, three very smelly presidents who completely ignored the constitution all together and did what they wanted any way; just as the House Boy has been doing.

Glock27's picture

Seems to me as if these guys were smelling more than a rat Have been reading about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson along with Taft, three very smelly presidents who completely ignored the constitution all together and did what they wanted any way; just as the House Boy has been doing.

Darkcrusade's picture

In the Preamble of their Corporate Charter, known affectionately as the Constitution for the United States of America, the Fleecing Fathers voiced their intent to Form a more perfect Union. At first glance, a literate student might suspect that the authors of the Articles of Incorporation were unschooled in English Grammar. After all, what educated person would add to a superlative, as in more perfect? First impressions, however, are often wrong.

Were the Fleecing Fathers unskilled in the art and science of writing? HARDLY! In almost all cases, their expertise in English Grammar far exceeded that of most modern postgraduates. They were true symbol-aeographers; persons skilled in the art and cunning of making legal instruments.

When subjected to the Fog Index, a scientific process for determining the complexity of written matter, the Constitution scores at Grade-Level 26. In other words, comprehension requires 26 years of formal academic experience! That’s a high school diploma plus 14 years of graduate and postgraduate education. The authors of the Constitution were indeed experts in the use of language. Where they said "..Form a more perfect Union," that’s exactly what they meant!

The toughest riddles to crack and the most amazing magic tricks, are those which focus the "victim’s" attention away from the solution. In the case of the cunning Constitution, its authors pointed to one Union, while creating an entirely different Union; with word-magic [emphasis added]. They formulated a riddle that has begged a solution for over 200 years.

Illusionists (liars), however carefully they try to conceal evidence, invariably leave clues by which their delusions can be dissipated. The Fleecing Fathers were no exception to the Rule of Riddles.

They referred to three different forms of "Union." In their Preamble they mentioned "a (more perfect) Union," which referred to "this Union," mentioned in Article 1-3, and Article 4-3,4. In addition, they spoke of "the Union" which, where used at Article 1-8-15, refers to the pre-existing Union of Independent States; and where used at Article 2-3: to the new states which would be admitted into the more perfect Union.

For over 200 years, since the ambitious Constitution was proposed (in 1787), the appointed experts and "leaders" -- teachers, preachers and politicians -- have trained the less-literate human herd in the false precept that the present "Union" is a continuation of the one which declared Independence from England in 1776. A literal reading of the Constitution proves that IT IS NOT a "continuing government." The present Union, is a fabrication; whose materials are fraud and deceit. [emphasis added]

The Preamble of the Constitution acknowledges the Union of States which existed prior to its execution, and implies that the pre-existing Union was perfect. And a "Union," which means one and unique (like "I," "Ego" and "Self") is by definition perfect. An absolute unique thing cannot logically be made more perfect, any more than it can be made more unique.

Not one word of the Fleecing Fathers’ Constitution acts directly on that pre-established Union. No word repeals or abolishes that Union, nor expands nor limits its jurisdiction. The Constitution merely plagiarizes its name as a cunning means of exploiting and confiscating the resources of the Several Lawful States; and converting their citizens and inhabitants into human resources for the profit of the Authors and their Posterity.

As revealed in their Preamble, they arranged their Union in Order, after and above the sequence of the Union which they usurped. "When is THIS Union not the Union?" Solution: When the Union is the original, lawful Union.

Samarami's picture

Crusade, glad to see you back here. Sorry you won't get a lot of "play". Seems to me that all the thinkers might have drifted off to sleep.

I like this guy, who commented on Trump (a linked video), and ended with the observation:

    "Reason is never a satisfying explanation of what you see"

"Our-Great-Constitution" satisfies that distraction. Get the hoi polloi whining and whimpering and pontificating about that, and questions never need arise that might challenge the validity of that group of psychopaths who act under the guise of "the state".

Verbal jujitsu is the backbone in the science of rulership. Sam


Darkcrusade's picture

Thanks Sam, The truth is usually hidden in plain sight within the contents of the documents.

When you come upon the verbiage of the "consent of the governed" it is indicative that we volunteer to
Place ourselves into that inferior status. Better to claim your rightfull place as the king without subjects.

Sure most have been indoctrinated since youth to consent and if that failed you are coerced or blackmailed and or threatened into the tar baby. Freedom has a price that few are willing to pay. More are finding the escape hatch written into their (secret) code and are emancipated from that beast. Others cannot give up the benefits and sell out for a bowl of porridge.

An Uncommon Man by Dean Alfange
I do not choose to be a common man.
It is my right to be uncommon, if I can.
I seek opportunity, not security.
I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the
state look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk;
to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed.
I refuse to barter incentive for a dole.
I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence;
the thrill of fulfillment to the stale clam of utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout.
I will never cower before any master nor bend to any threat.
It is my hertiage to stand erect, proud, and unafraid;
to think and act for myself, enjoy the benefits of my creations
and face the world boldly and say: This I have done.

Samarami's picture

If one is truly anarchist, s/he will indeed be an "uncommon (wo)man"

Here's a link to a work by the late Delmar England:

It's a long, difficult read. Difficult because England slings mud all over your idols, and you're not going to like that very much. But as a libertarian writer, he was indeed uncommon.

He challenge us to examine "epistemology" -- how any of us come to know what we know. To understand the mind, how it works, how imbedded "beliefs" will effect the outcomes of my thinking. When I find myself whining and moaning about my "rights" being trampled, it is important for me to own why and how I got myself into this position. Much more.

Once I get started with it I cannot put it down.


Darkcrusade's picture

Thanks Sam, i always so much enjoy every posting of yours and value your
well thought out ideas expressed so crystalline. Which is why i invite you to that forum.
We are simpatico on much.